Danilo Restivo has had his 'whole life' sentence overturned at the Court of Appeal

A hair fetishist who murdered and mutilated a mother of two won an appeal today against an order which prevented him from ever being released.

Danilo Restivo, 40, who killed a mother-of-two in Bournemouth in 2002, had his 'whole-life' tariff overturned by the Court of Appeal and will now serve a minimum term of 40 years instead.

Five judges in London also announced that they were reducing the whole-life order imposed on 'Bermondsey Beast' rapist Michael Roberts to a minimum term of 25 years.

But the court refused to quash the whole-life order in the case of killer David Oakes, who 'sadistically tortured' his former partner before shooting her and their two-year-old daughter.

The panel, headed by Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge, also upheld the 30-year minimum term imposed on Kiaran Stapleton, who was jailed for life earlier this year after he 'executed' a stranger in the street.

Although the judges overturned the whole-life orders in the cases of Restivo and Roberts, they announced that imposing such orders did not contravene Article Three of the European Convention of Human Rights, which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment.

The pair are all still subject to life sentences but can apply for parole once the minimum periods have expired.

They would not be released until they are deemed to no longer pose a threat to the public.

Lord Judge said he thought it was 'highly unlikely' that any of the five would be released.

RELATED ARTICLES

Share this article

The minimum term imposed in the case of Restivo is the equivalent of an 80-year determinate term, with the 25 years in the case of Roberts being the equivalent of 50 years.

Restivo was given a whole-life tariff in June last year for the 'depraved' and 'callous' murder and mutilation of a mother-of-two in Bournemouth.

Heather Barnett, 48, who Danilo Restivo killed in Bournemouth in 2002

The Italian national was found guilty by a jury at Winchester Crown Court of the 2002 murder of neighbour Heather Barnett, 48.

Rapist Roberts, who terrorised elderly women in a London suburb for more than a decade, was jailed in January and told he would live out his days behind bars.

Roberts, now 46, joined a small group of 'life means life' prisoners after raping three victims - one aged 83 - and viciously attacking a fourth in Bermondsey, south London.

He evaded justice for 15 years but was captured after a cold case review by Scotland Yard.

Oakes, 51, of Canney Road, Steeple, Essex, who 'sadistically tortured' his former partner before shooting her and their two-year-old daughter, was told at Chelmsford Crown Court in May that he will never be released from prison after a jury found him guilty.

'Bermondsey Beast' Michael Roberts, left, has seen his 'whole life' sentence for rape overturned, but killer David Oakes, right, had his appeal turned down

He went to Christine Chambers’s house in Braintree where he killed her and daughter Shania with a shotgun.

Stapleton, 21 - who labelled himself 'Psycho' when he appeared in court - shot Indian student Anuj Bidve, 23, at point-blank range in Salford, Greater Manchester.

Lawyers for those with a whole-life order had asked the court to set a minimum term instead.

David Perry QC, for the Crown, told the judges at the hearing of the appeals that it was seeking to 'support the whole-life orders made in the cases of Oakes and Restivo', and the minimum term imposed in Stapleton’s case.

Murderer Kiaran Stapleton's minimum term was upheld by the panel of judges at the Court of Appeal

In the case of Roberts, it was conceded that the making of a whole-life order was 'wrong in principle'.

But he stressed that in making such a concession, 'we are not seeking to minimise the seriousness of the offences'.

He added: 'Our submissions are intended to reflect the fact that a whole-life order is reserved for rare cases of exceptional gravity, where a whole-life order is made for the purpose of pure punishment, and not for public protection.'

Lord Judge said: 'We should perhaps emphasise at the outset that each of these appellants is dangerous, and on the available evidence, likely to remain dangerous for the indefinite future.

'At present it is difficult to see how it will ever become safe for any of them to be released from custody.'